DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on November 21, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
In response to Applicant’s arguments/remarks with regard to double patenting rejections (see page 9), it is noted that Applicant decided to take action at a later date/time. Thus, such double patenting rejections are repeated below.
In response to Applicant’s argument/remarks with regard to claim rejections of claims 21-57 under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see page 10), it is noted that the response does not provide any remarks how the newly added claim limitations would overcome the 101 rejection. For compact prosecution, the examiner would like to offer the following remarks:
With regard to amended claim 21, the newly added claim limitations do not add anything that would make claim statutory as pointed out in the rejection section presented in this Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument/remarks with regard to claim rejections of claims 21-22, 29-44, 46-49 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purdum (see pages 10-11), it is noted that such arguments/remarks are based on the newly added claim limitations to amended claim 21. The examiner would like to offer the following remarks: the rejection of claim 21 presented in the claim rejection section below is incorporated herein.
In response to Applicant’s argument/remarks with regard to claims 54 and 57 (see pages 11-13), it is noted that such arguments/remarks are based on the newly added claim limitations to amended claim 54. The examiner would like to offer the following remarks: the rejection of claim 54 presented in the claim rejection section below is incorporated herein.
In response to Applicant’s argument/remarks with regard to claim rejections of claims 23-28, 45 and 50-52 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdum in view of Blake (see pages 13-14), it is noted that such arguments/remarks are based on the same arguments/remarks applied to the 102 rejection of their base claims. Thus, the advanced statements set forth in the preceding paragraph (i.e., paragraph 5) are incorporated herein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 21-57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 9,767,163 (referred as ‘163 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘163 patent. For example, as to instant claim 21, claim 1 of the ‘163 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2):
a memory (see lines 10-14: computer system inherently includes a memory for storing computer instructions); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 10-14: processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see lines 21-25: output signal from imaging acquisition device is transmitted to the computer system for processing by processor; such output signal is an image of said collectible as defined by patented claim 10);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see lines 21-25); and
detect, by the at least one processor, one or more characteristics of the collectible based on results of the at least one processing routine, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least a defect, an alteration, or a lack of the defect or the alteration detected based on the results of the at least one processing routine (see lines 26-28: the grade report does comprise defect report as defined by patented claim 20).
While claim 1 of the ‘163 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device and its components such housing, imaging device, light source, and stage; input signal; output device) that are not set forth in the instant claim 21, the use of transitional term “comprising/comprises” in the instant claim 21 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 21 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘163 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 21 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 22, claim 19 of the ‘163 patent discloses wherein the one or more characteristics of the collectible are examined to detect differences between the collectible and other similar collectibles of a similar type” (see lines 1-5: measure the thickness of said collectible to determine whether said collectible has been altered from its original condition and whether said collectible has been modified to conceal a defect).
Regarding instant claim 23, claim 2 of the ‘163 patent discloses “assign one or more descriptors related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-4: information refers to claim descriptors).
Regarding instant claim 24, claim 2 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the one or more descriptors comprise one or more words or phrases used to categorize or describe the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-4: database comprises information and metadata which inherently include words/phrases used to categorize/describe characteristics of collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, claim 12 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor compares the one or more characteristics of the collectible against a database comprising information related to a plurality of collectibles in order to identify the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 26, claim 12 of the ‘163 patent discloses “ wherein the at least one processing routine comprises a comparison routine, wherein the at least one processor compares at least one image of one or more previously examined collectibles against the at least one image of the collectible, not known to have been previously examined, obtained by the apparatus, in order to determine whether the at least one image of the collectible matches with the at least one image of the one or more previously examined collectibles” (see lines 1-5: image of said collectible being compared against said database in order to identify said collectible refers to claim image of collectible not known to have been previous examined).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor detects at least one characteristic of the collectible that is a known counterfeit characteristic of a known counterfeit collectible” (see lines 1-9).
Regarding instant claim 28, claim 27 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor detects that the collectible is a counterfeit collectible by a comparison between at least one characteristic of the collectible and a known counterfeit collectible comprising at least one known counterfeit characteristic” (see lines 1-9).
Regarding instant claim 29, claims 13-17 and 19 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processing routine comprises at least one of a corner routine, an edge routine, a centering routine, a dimension routine, or a surface routine, wherein the at least one processor examines at least one of a corner, an edge, a centering, a dimension, physical properties, physical characteristics, or a surface of the collectible” (see corner routine in patented claim 14, edge routine in patented claim 15, centering routine in patented claim 16, or surface routine in patented claim 17; as for dimension routine, see thickness measurement in patented claim 19 and/or subtraction routine in patented claim 13).
Regarding instant claim 30, claim 14 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine one or more characteristics of one or more corners” (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 31, claims 19-20 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more corners have been altered” (i.e., patented claim 19 (thickness of the collectible has been altered and thickness of the collectible includes thickness of the corner); corner defects in patented claim 20).
Regarding instant claim 32, see claim 15 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein to perform the edge routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to detect an expected or unexpected curvature or straightness of at least one edge of the collectible” (see lines 1-5: edge quality).
Regarding instant claim 33, claim 15 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more edges of the collectible have been trimmed, pressed, colored or otherwise altered from its original, as manufactured, characteristics” (see lines 1-5: edge quality).
Regarding instant claim 34, claim 16 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein to perform the centering routine the at least one processor is configured to measure a margin between an edge of the collectible and a start of a collectible image on the collectible” (see lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 35, while claims of the ‘163 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein to perform the centering routine where a collectible image extends to at least one edge of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between at least opposing edges of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the accuracy of the report so that the appraisal would be improved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claims of the ‘163 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 36, while claims of the ‘163 patent does not disclose “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between any text or logo on the collectible to at least one opposing edge of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the accuracy of the report so that the appraisal would be improved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claims of the ‘163 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 37, while claims of the ‘163 patent does not disclose “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to compare other similar collectibles to determine an intended distance between the at least one image of the collectible to at least one opposing edge of another similar collectible to determine a centering of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the accuracy of the report so that the appraisal would be improved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claims of the ‘163 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 38, claim 17 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible for subtractive defects, additive discolorations, pressing characteristics, or quality of color of a surface of the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 39, claim 18 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the subtractive defects comprise a crease or scratch in the collectible that would otherwise not be present, wherein the additive discolorations comprise a stain or color alteration in the collectible that would otherwise not be present” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 40, claim 17 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the surface of the collectible has been altered” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 41, claim 1 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see last 3 lines).
Regarding instant claim 42, claim 20 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a scoring breakdown based on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 43, claim 20 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the scoring breakdown comprises a scoring for the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the scoring of the one or more characteristics are part of an overall score of the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 44, while claim 1 of the ‘163 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a digital image of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report visually.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘163 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 45, while claim 20 of the ‘163 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a counterfeit notification when the collectible is determined to be a counterfeit collectible.”, it does disclose “grade report comprises a detailed defect report identifying defects on said collectible” and such defect comprises counterfeit defect as defined in patented claim 27. Thus, the defect recited in patented claim 20 does include counterfeit notification in the grade report.
Regarding instant claim 46, claim 20 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a defect listing that indicates a location of one or more defects on the collectible” (see lines 1-5: corner, edge, surface, and center defects).
Regarding instant claim 47, while claim 20 of the ‘163 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the defect listing comprises a defect image indicating the location of the one or more defects”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed. The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report visually.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 20 of the ‘163 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 48, claim 29 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a provenance report that indicates an ownership history of the collectible” (see lines 1-4: perfect collectible is a proof collectible which inherently includes ownership).
Regarding instant claim 49, claim 29 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a proof card indication indicating that the collectible is free of any defects” (see lines 1-4: perfect collectible is a proof collectible and such perfect collectible inherently includes free of any defects).
Regarding instant claim 50, claim 24 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the results of the at least one processing routine produce a fingerprint of the collectible, such that the collectible is authenticated by the apparatus based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 51, claim 26 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor utilizes the fingerprint of the collectible to determine if the collectible has been previously graded or if a different collectible has been substituted in place of the collectible that has been previously graded” (see lines 1-9).
Regarding instant claim 52, claim 4 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein the at least one image of the collectible is obtained free of any external holders or protective elements or is obtained while the collectible is within the external holders or the protective elements (see lines 1-4: capturing at least one image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 53, while claim 1 of the ‘163 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein to detect the one or more characteristics of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to detect text or symbols on the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘163 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 54, claim 13 (claim 13 depends on claim 10 which depends on claim 1; thus, claim 13 would inherit all claim limitations recited in claims 10 and 1) of the ‘163 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2 of claim 1):
a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 10-15 of claim 1: computer system inherently includes a memory; processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see lines 21-25 of claim 1: output signal from imaging acquisition device is transmitted to the computer system for processing by processor; such output signal is an image of said collectible as defined by patented claim 10);
generate at least one enhanced image of the collectible, based on the at least one image of the collectible, in preparation for grading the collectible (see claim 10 and lines 1-6 of claim 13); and
assign a grade to the collectible based on the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see lines 26-28 of claim 1: the grade report does comprise defect report as defined by patented claim 20).
While claim 13 of the ‘163 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device and its components such housing, imaging device, light source, and stage; input signal; output device) that are not set forth in the instant claim 54, the use of transitional term “comprising/comprises” in the instant claim 54 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 54 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 13 of the ‘163 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 54 is anticipated by patented claim 13 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 55, claim 13 of the ‘163 patent further discloses wherein the grade of the collectible is based on an examination of the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 56, claim 13 of the ‘163 patent further discloses wherein to generate the at least one enhanced image of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to: apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image of the collectible. (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 57, see rejected applied to instant claim 54 above.
Claims 21, 23-25, 41, 44, and 50-57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,146,841 (referred as ‘841 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘841 patent. For example, as to instant claim 21, claim of the ‘841 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2):
a memory (see lines 7-9: computer inherently includes memory);
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 7-9; processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions);
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see lines 3-6 and 14-17);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see lines 18-22); and
detect, by the at least one processor, one or more characteristics of the collectible based on results of the at least one processing routine, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least a defect, an alteration, or a lack of the defect or the alteration detected based on the results of the at least one processing routine (see lines 18-22: the grade report).
While claim 1 of the ‘841 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device; transmit at least one signal...) that are not set forth in the instant claim 21, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in the instant claim 21 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 21 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘841 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 21 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘841 patent and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 23, claim 4 of the ‘841 patent discloses “assign one or more descriptors related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-4: information refers to claim descriptors).
Regarding instant claim 24, claim 4 of the ‘841 patent discloses “wherein the one or more descriptors comprise one or more words or phrases used to categorize or describe the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-4: database comprises information and metadata which inherently include words/phrases used to categorize/describe characteristics of collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, while claim 1 of the ‘841 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor compares the one or more characteristics of the collectible against a database comprising information related to a plurality of collectibles in order to identify the one or more characteristics of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘841 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 41, claim 1 of the ‘841 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see last 3 lines).
Regarding instant claim 44, while claim 1 of the ‘841 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a digital image of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report visually.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘841 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 50, claim 12 of the ‘841 patent discloses “wherein the results of the at least one processing routine produce a fingerprint of the collectible, such that the collectible is authenticated by the apparatus based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 51, claim 12 of the ‘841 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor utilizes the fingerprint of the collectible to determine if the collectible has been previously graded or if a different collectible has been substituted in place of the collectible that has been previously graded” (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 52, claim 1 of the ‘841 patent discloses “wherein the at least one image of the collectible is obtained free of any external holders or protective elements or is obtained while the collectible is within the external holders or the protective elements” (see lines 2-5: capturing at least one image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 53, while claim 1 of the ‘841 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein to detect the one or more characteristics of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to detect text or symbols on the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘841 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 54, claim 8 (claim 8 depends on claim 7 which depends on claim 2 which depends on claim 1; thus, claim 8 would inherit all claim limitations recited in claims 7, 2 and 1) of the ‘841 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2 of claim 1):
a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 7-9 of claim 1: computer system inherently includes a memory; processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see lines 3-6 and 14-17 of claim 1);
generate at least one enhanced image of the collectible, based on the at least one image of the collectible, in preparation for grading the collectible (see lines 1-4); and
assign a grade to the collectible based on the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see claim 7 and last 5 lines of claim 1).
While claim 8 of the ‘841 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device) that are not set forth in the instant claim 54, the use of transitional term “comprising/comprises” in the instant claim 54 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 54 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 8 of the ‘841 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 54 is anticipated by patented claim 8 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 55, claim 8 of the ‘841 patent further discloses wherein the grade of the collectible is based on an examination of the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 56, claim 8 of the ‘841 patent further discloses wherein to generate the at least one enhanced image of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to: apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image of the collectible. (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 57, see rejected applied to instant claim 54 above.
Claims 21, 23-25, 41, 44, 49, and 52-53 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,330 (referred as the ‘330 patent application hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 21 as a representative claim is fully defined by claims of the ‘330 patent. For example, claim 1 of the ‘330 patent discloses:
a memory (see lines 8-12: computer inherently includes memory);
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 8-12: processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions);
obtain at least one image of said collectible (see lines 2-7, 8-12 and 16-18: computer receives output signal from image acquisition device and such output signal is an image of the collectible that is captured by the image acquisition device);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see 16-18); and
detect, by the at least one processor, one or more characteristics of the collectible based on results of the at least one processing routine, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least a defect, an alteration, or a lack of the defect or the alteration detected based on the results of the at least one processing routine (see last 7 lines).
While claim 1 of the ‘330 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., image acquisition device; database) that are not set forth in the instant claim 1, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in the instant claim 21 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 21 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘330 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 21 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 23, claim 2 of the ‘330 patent discloses “assign one or more descriptors related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5: information refers to claim descriptors).
Regarding instant claim 24, claim 2 of the ‘330 patent discloses “wherein the one or more descriptors comprise one or more words or phrases used to categorize or describe the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5: database comprises information and metadata which inherently include words/phrases used to categorize/describe characteristics of collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, while claim 1 of the ‘330 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor compares the one or more characteristics of the collectible against a database comprising information related to a plurality of collectibles in order to identify the one or more characteristics of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘330 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 41, claim 1 of the ‘330 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see last 7 lines).
Regarding instant claim 44, while claim 1 of the ‘841 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a digital image of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report visually.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘330 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 49, claim 12 of the ‘330 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a proof card indication indicating that the collectible is free of any defects” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 52, claim 1 of the ‘330 patent discloses “wherein the at least one image of the collectible is obtained free of any external holders or protective elements or is obtained while the collectible is within the external holders or the protective elements” (see lines 3-7: capturing at least one image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 53, while claim 1 of the ‘330 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein to detect the one or more characteristics of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to detect text or symbols on the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘330 patent for that reasons.
Claims 21, 23-25, 41, 44 and 50-57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,459,931 (referred as the ‘931 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claim 21 as a representative claim is fully defined by claims of the ‘931 patent. For example, claim 1 of the ‘931 patent discloses:
a memory (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 3-5: computer inherently includes memory);
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 3-7: processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions);
obtain at least one image of said collectible (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 6-7);
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 8-11); and
detect, by the at least one processor, one or more characteristics of the collectible based on results of the at least one processing routine, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least a defect, an alteration, or a lack of the defect or the alteration detected based on the results of the at least one processing routine (see claim 1 of the ‘931 patent lines 8-11).
While claim 1 of the ‘931 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., instructions) that are not set forth in the instant claim 21, the use of transitional term "comprising/comprises" in the instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 21 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘931 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 21 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 23, claim 5 of the ‘931 patent discloses “assign one or more descriptors related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5: information refers to claim descriptors).
Regarding instant claim 24, claim 5 of the ‘931 patent discloses “wherein the one or more descriptors comprise one or more words or phrases used to categorize or describe the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5: database comprises information and metadata which inherently include words/phrases used to categorize/describe characteristics of collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, while claim 1 of the ‘931 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor compares the one or more characteristics of the collectible against a database comprising information related to a plurality of collectibles in order to identify the one or more characteristics of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘931 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 41, claim 1 of the ‘931 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see last 4 lines).
Regarding instant claim 44, while claim 1 of the ‘931 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a digital image of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report visually.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘931 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 50, claim 14 of the ‘931 patent discloses “wherein the results of the at least one processing routine produce a fingerprint of the collectible, such that the collectible is authenticated by the apparatus based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see patented claim 13 lines 1-5 and patented claim 14 line 1-4 (note that patented claim 14 depends on patented claim 13 so it also includes all claim limitations recited in patented claim 13)).
Regarding instant claim 51, claim 14 of the ‘931 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor utilizes the fingerprint of the collectible to determine if the collectible has been previously graded or if a different collectible has been substituted in place of the collectible that has been previously graded” (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 52, claim 1 of the ‘931 patent discloses “wherein the at least one image of the collectible is obtained free of any external holders or protective elements or is obtained while the collectible is within the external holders or the protective elements” (see lines 6-7: receiving at least one image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 53, while claim 1 of the ‘931 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein to detect the one or more characteristics of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to detect text or symbols on the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘931 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 54, claim 9 (claim 9 depends on claim 8 which depends on claim 2 which depends on claim 1; thus, claim 9 would inherit all claim limitations recited in claims 8, 2 and 1) of the ‘931 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2 of claim 1):
a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 3-5 of claim 1: computer system inherently includes a memory; processor is inherently coupled to the memory in order to execute computer instructions):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see lines 6-7 of claim 1);
generate at least one enhanced image of the collectible, based on the at least one image of the collectible, in preparation for grading the collectible (see lines 1-4); and
assign a grade to the collectible based on the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see claim 8 and last 4 lines of claim 1).
Therefore, instant claim 54 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 9 of the ‘931 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 54 is anticipated by patented claim 9 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 55, claim 9 of the ‘931 patent further discloses wherein the grade of the collectible is based on an examination of the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 56, claim 9 of the ‘931 patent further discloses wherein to generate the at least one enhanced image of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to: apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image of the collectible. (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 57, see rejected applied to instant claim 54 above.
Claims 21-57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10,942,933 (referred as ‘933 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘933 patent. For example, as to instant claim 21, claim 1 of the ‘933 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see line 1):
a memory (see line 2); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines 3-4):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see line 5)
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image (see lines 9-10); and
detect, by the at least one processor, one or more characteristics of the collectible based on results of the at least one processing routine, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least a defect, an alteration, or a lack of the defect or the alteration detected based on the results of the at least one processing routine (see lines 11-12).
While claim 1 of the ‘933 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., access a database...) that are not set forth in the instant claim 21, the use of transitional term “comprising/comprises” in the instant claim 1 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 21 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘933 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 21 is anticipated by patented claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 22, claim 13 of the ‘993 patent discloses “wherein the one or more characteristics of the collectible are examined to detect differences between the collectible and other similar collectibles of a similar type” (see lines 1-5: measure the thickness of said collectible to determine whether said collectible has been altered from its original condition and whether said collectible has been modified to conceal a defect).
Regarding instant claim 23, claim 4 of the ‘933 patent discloses “assign one or more descriptors related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-3 and patented claim 3 which patented claim 4 depends from: information refers to claim descriptors).
Regarding instant claim 24, claims 3-4 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the one or more descriptors comprise one or more words or phrases used to categorize or describe the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-4: database comprises information and metadata which inherently include words/phrases used to categorize/describe characteristics of collectible).
Regarding instant claim 25, claim 13 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor compares the one or more characteristics of the collectible against a database comprising information related to a plurality of collectibles in order to identify the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 26, claim 15 of the ‘933 patent discloses “ wherein the at least one processing routine comprises a comparison routine, wherein the at least one processor compares at least one image of one or more previously examined collectibles against the at least one image of the collectible, not known to have been previously examined, obtained by the apparatus, in order to determine whether the at least one image of the collectible matches with the at least one image of the one or more previously examined collectibles” (see lines 1-7).
Regarding instant claim 27, claim 16 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor detects at least one characteristic of the collectible that is a known counterfeit characteristic of a known counterfeit collectible” (see lines 1-8).
Regarding instant claim 28, claim 17 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor detects that the collectible is a counterfeit collectible by a comparison between at least one characteristic of the collectible and a known counterfeit collectible comprising at least one known counterfeit characteristic” (see lines 1-8).
Regarding instant claim 29, claim 18 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processing routine comprises at least one of a corner routine, an edge routine, a centering routine, a dimension routine, or a surface routine, wherein the at least one processor examines at least one of a corner, an edge, a centering, a dimension, physical properties, physical characteristics, or a surface of the collectible” (see lines 1-7)
Regarding instant claim 30, claim 19 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine one or more characteristics of one or more corners” (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 31, claim 20 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more corners have been altered” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 32, see claim 21/22 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein to perform the edge routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to detect an expected or unexpected curvature or straightness of at least one edge of the collectible” (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 33, claim 21 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more edges of the collectible have been trimmed, pressed, colored or otherwise altered from its original, as manufactured, characteristics” (see lines 1-4 of patented claim 21: edge quality; see patented claim 22 lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 34, claim 23 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein to perform the centering routine the at least one processor is configured to measure a margin between an edge of the collectible and a start of a collectible image on the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 35, while claim 23 of the ‘933 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein to perform the centering routine where a collectible image extends to at least one edge of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between at least opposing edges of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the accuracy of the report so that the appraisal would be improved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 23 of the ‘933 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 36, while claim 23 of the ‘933 patent does not disclose “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between any text or logo on the collectible to at least one opposing edge of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the accuracy of the report so that the appraisal would be improved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 23 of the ‘933 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 37, while claim 23 of the ‘933 patent does not disclose “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to compare other similar collectibles to determine an intended distance between the at least one image of the collectible to at least one opposing edge of another similar collectible to determine a centering of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to enhance the accuracy of the report so that the appraisal would be improved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 23 of the ‘933 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 38, claim 24 of the ‘163 patent discloses “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible for subtractive defects, additive discolorations, pressing characteristics, or quality of color of a surface of the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 39, claim 25 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the subtractive defects comprise a crease or scratch in the collectible that would otherwise not be present, wherein the additive discolorations comprise a stain or color alteration in the collectible that would otherwise not be present” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 40, claim 26 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the surface of the collectible has been altered” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 41, claim 27 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-8).
Regarding instant claim 42, claim 27 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a scoring breakdown based on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-8: score of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 43, claim 27 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the scoring breakdown comprises a scoring for the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the scoring of the one or more characteristics are part of an overall score of the collectible” (see lines 1-8).
Regarding instant claim 44, while claim 1 of the ‘933 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a digital image of the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report visually.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘933 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 45, claim 27 of the ‘933 patent discloses claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a counterfeit notification when the collectible is determined to be a counterfeit collectible” (see lines 1-8: defect report includes counterfeit notification in the grade report per patented claim 16).
Regarding instant claim 46, claim 27 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a defect listing that indicates a location of one or more defects on the collectible” (see lines 1-8: corner, edge, surface, and center defects).
Regarding instant claim 47, while claim 27 of the ‘933 patent discloses claim limitation “wherein the defect listing comprises a defect image indicating the location of the one or more defects” (see lines 1-8: corner, edge, surface, and center defects).
Regarding instant claim 48, claim 30 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a provenance report that indicates an ownership history of the collectible” (see lines 1-4: proof collectible inherently includes ownership).
Regarding instant claim 49, claim 30 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a proof card indication indicating that the collectible is free of any defects” (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 50, claim 28 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the results of the at least one processing routine produce a fingerprint of the collectible, such that the collectible is authenticated by the apparatus based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 51, claim 28 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one processor utilizes the fingerprint of the collectible to determine if the collectible has been previously graded or if a different collectible has been substituted in place of the collectible that has been previously graded” (see lines 1-5).
Regarding instant claim 52, claim 33 of the ‘933 patent discloses “wherein the at least one image of the collectible is obtained free of any external holders or protective elements or is obtained while the collectible is within the external holders or the protective elements” (see lines 1-4: capturing at least one image of said collectible).
Regarding instant claim 53, while claim 1 of the ‘933 patent does not disclose claim limitation “wherein to detect the one or more characteristics of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to detect text or symbols on the collectible”, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the report accuracy so that correct appraisal would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claim 1 of the ‘933 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 54, claim 7 (claim 7 depends on claim 6 which depends on claim 1; thus, claim 7 would inherit all claim limitations recited in claims 6 and 1) of the ‘933 patent discloses an apparatus for grading a collectible comprising (see lines 1-2 of claim 1):
a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see lines -2-4 of claim 1):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see line 5 of claim 1);
generate at least one enhanced image of the collectible, based on the at least one image of the collectible, in preparation for grading the collectible (see lines 1-3); and
assign a grade to the collectible based on the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see last 2 lines of claim 1).
While claim 7 of the ‘933 patent includes additional limitations (i.e., database) that are not set forth in the instant claim 54, the use of transitional term “comprising/comprises” in the instant claim 54 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements. Therefore, instant claim 54 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from claim 7 of the ‘933 patent. Furthermore, each of the limitations recited in instant claim 54 is anticipated by patented claim 7 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.”
Regarding instant claim 55, claim 7 of the ‘933 patent further discloses wherein the grade of the collectible is based on an examination of the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 56, claim 7 of the ‘933 patent further discloses wherein to generate the at least one enhanced image of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to: apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image of the collectible. (see analysis applied to claim 54 above).
Regarding instant claim 57, see rejected applied to instant claim 54 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 21 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 21 recites an apparatus, which is one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image, wherein results of the at least one processing routine include information related to physical conditions of the collectible, wherein the at least one processing routine includes different processing routines for respective physical conditions of the collectible” and “detect, by the at least one processor, one or more characteristics of the collectible based on the results of the at least one processing routine, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least a defect, an alteration, or a lack of the defect or the alteration detected based on the results of the at least one processing routine” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at or observing the collectible then detecting the present or absent of defect or alternation in the collectible. The observed information related to physical condition of the collectible is memorized in human mind and it is used to detect the present or absent of the defect or alternation in the collectible mentally. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to the so-called processing routine that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional elements (i.e., “obtain at least one image of the collectible”, “memory” and “at least one processor”). The additional element “obtain...” is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. The additional elements “memory” and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. Thus, these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional element “obtain...” is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant activity. The additional elements “memory” and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22-53, each of these claims does not recite any additional element that would make it statutory.
Regarding claim 22, the additional claim limitation “wherein the one or more characteristics of the collectible are examined to detect differences between the collectible and other similar collectibles of a similar type” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal (i.e., differences) presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 22 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 23, the additional claim limitation “assign one or more descriptors related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then writing/making a note/comment about it. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 23 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 24, the additional claim limitation “wherein the one or more descriptors comprise one or more words or phrases used to categorize or describe the one or more characteristics of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then writing/making a note/comment about it. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 24 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 25, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor compares the one or more characteristics of the collectible against a database comprising information related to a plurality of collectibles in order to identify the one or more characteristics of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible by comparing it with collection (i.e., database). Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 25 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 26, the additional claim limitation “ wherein the at least one processing routine comprises a comparison routine, wherein the at least one processor compares at least one image of one or more previously examined collectibles against the at least one image of the collectible, not known to have been previously examined, obtained by the apparatus, in order to determine whether the at least one image of the collectible matches with the at least one image of the one or more previously examined collectibles” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at instant collectible and the examined collectible for matching determination. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 26 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 27, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor detects at least one characteristic of the collectible that is a known counterfeit characteristic of a known counterfeit collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 27 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 28, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor detects that the collectible is a counterfeit collectible by a comparison between at least one characteristic of the collectible and a known counterfeit collectible comprising at least one known counterfeit characteristic” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 28 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 29, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one processing routine comprises at least one of a corner routine, an edge routine, a centering routine, a dimension routine, or a surface routine, wherein the at least one processor examines at least one of a corner, an edge, a centering, a dimension, physical properties, physical characteristics, or a surface of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 29 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 30, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine one or more characteristics of one or more corners” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 30 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 31, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more corners have been altered” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 31 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 32, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the edge routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to detect an expected or unexpected curvature or straightness of at least one edge of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 32 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 33, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more edges of the collectible have been trimmed, pressed, colored or otherwise altered from its original, as manufactured, characteristics” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detecting any defect or abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 33 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 34, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the centering routine the at least one processor is configured to measure a margin between an edge of the collectible and a start of a collectible image on the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then measuring the margin with a ruler. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 34 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 35, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the centering routine where a collectible image extends to at least one edge of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between at least opposing edges of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then measuring the distance between edges of the collectible with a ruler for calculating a center of the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 35 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 36, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between any text or logo on the collectible to at least one opposing edge of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then measuring the distance between logo/text and edges of the collectible with a ruler for calculating a center of the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 36 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 37, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to compare other similar collectibles to determine an intended distance between the at least one image of the collectible to at least one opposing edge of another similar collectible to determine a centering of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then measuring the distance between edges of the collectible with a ruler for calculating a center of the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 37 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 38, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible for subtractive defects, additive discolorations, pressing characteristics, or quality of color of a surface of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible to determine any defect/abnormal (crease, scratch, discolorations, pressed markings, blur/clear coloring) presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 38 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 39, the additional claim limitation “wherein the subtractive defects comprise a crease or scratch in the collectible that would otherwise not be present, wherein the additive discolorations comprise a stain or color alteration in the collectible that would otherwise not be present” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible to determine any crease/scratch presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 39 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 40, the additional claim limitation “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the surface of the collectible has been altered” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible to determine any alternation/abnormal presented in the collectible. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 40 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 41, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then writing a report/comment/note about it. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 41 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 42, the additional claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a scoring breakdown based on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of grading thing with scoring numbers. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 42 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 43, the additional claim limitation “wherein the scoring breakdown comprises a scoring for the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the scoring of the one or more characteristics are part of an overall score of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of grading thing with scoring numbers. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 43 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 44, the additional claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a digital image of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. These additional elements are also interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 44 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 45, the additional claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a counterfeit notification when the collectible is determined to be a counterfeit collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. These additional elements are also interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 45 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 46, the additional claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a defect listing that indicates a location of one or more defects on the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then writing a report/comment/note about it. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 46 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 47, the additional claim limitation “wherein the defect listing comprises a defect image indicating the location of the one or more defects” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then writing a report/comment/note about it. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 47 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 48, the additional claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a provenance report that indicates an ownership history of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then writing a report/comment/note about it. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 48 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 49, the additional claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a proof card indication indicating that the collectible is free of any defects” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then writing a report/comment/note about it. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 49 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 50, the additional claim limitation “wherein the results of the at least one processing routine produce a fingerprint of the collectible, such that the collectible is authenticated by the apparatus based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at collectible then detect any defect, abnormal or unique thing presented in the collectible and using it for authentication manually. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 50 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 51, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one processor utilizes the fingerprint of the collectible to determine if the collectible has been previously graded or if a different collectible has been substituted in place of the collectible that has been previously graded” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 51 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 52, the additional claim limitation “wherein the at least one image of the collectible is obtained free of any external holders or protective elements or is obtained while the collectible is within the external holders or the protective elements” are interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 52 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 53, the additional claim limitation “wherein to detect the one or more characteristics of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to detect text or symbols on the collectible” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 53 recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-22, 29-44, 46-49 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purdum (U.S. Pat. No. 5,018,207, art of record IDS filed on March 5, 2021, referred as Purdum hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21 as a representative claim, Purdum discloses an apparatus for examining a collectible (see figure 1 which is a representation of stamp grading system) comprising: a memory (see col. 2 lines 28-32; also see computer 22 in figure 1 and such memory is included computer 22 as described in col. 3 lines 55-66); and at least one processor (Intel 80286 CPU) coupled to the memory and configured to (see computer 22 in figure 1 and such a processor coupled to a memory is also described in col. 3 lines 55-56):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see figure 1 and col. 3 lines 34-55: collectible (stamp 21) is captured by digitizer 24 whose output image is transmitted to computer 22),
apply at least one processing routine to said at least one image, wherein results of the at least one processing routine include information related to physical conditions of the collectible, wherein the at least one processing routine includes different processing routines for respective physical conditions of the collectible (see col. 3 lines 34-55 (computer 22 is programmed to analyze image supplied from digitizer 24; and obtain the center index representing an object measurement of the centering quality of the stamp; since the data supplied to computer represent physical conditions of the stamp (vignette or design area 23, border 25, markings 25 are included in stamp 21 as shown in figure 1)); col. 5 line 59 to col. 6 line 18 (measuring all four margins, top, bottom, right of the stamp; processing to find maximum border width for all four sides of the stamp; thus, each process for each side of the four sides of the stamp), and
detect one or more characteristics of the collectible based on the results of the at least one processing routine (see col. 3 lines 45-55: obtaining measurement of the centering index of the stamp based on the results of the image analysis), wherein detect, by the at least one processor, one or more characteristics of the collectible based on the results of the at least one processing routine, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least a defect, an alteration, or a lack of the defect or the alteration detected based on the results of the at least one processing routine (see col. 1 lines 20-60: stamps are graded as super, extreme fine, very fine, fine, very good, good, fair and poor based on their characteristics such as defects or alternations).
Regarding instant claim 22, Purdum further discloses “wherein the one or more characteristics of the collectible are examined to detect differences between the collectible and other similar collectibles of a similar type” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: stamps are graded as super, extreme fine, very fine, fine, very good, good, fair and poor based on their characteristics such as defects).
Regarding instant claim 29, Purdum further discloses “wherein the at least one processing routine comprises at least one of a corner routine, an edge routine, a centering routine, a dimension routine, or a surface routine, wherein the at least one processor examines at least one of a corner, an edge, a centering, a dimension, physical properties, physical characteristics, or a surface of the collectible” (see col. 5 line 63 to col. 6 line 18: measuring margins, top, bottom, left, right and centering).
Regarding instant claim 30, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine one or more characteristics of one or more corners” (see col. 5 line 63 to col. 6 line 18: measuring margins, top, bottom, left, right and centering and these measurements inherently include corners).
Regarding instant claim 31, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the corner routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more corners have been altered” (see col. 1 lines 52-60: stamp is graded based on defect found on the stamp and such defects are obliterating cancellation mark, tear, no margins; margins include corners so when there is no margins, corners haven been altered; also see col. 1 lines 50-51: stamp is graded very good with off center with design cut by stamp edges and perforations).
Regarding instant claim 32, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the edge routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to detect an expected or unexpected curvature or straightness of at least one edge of the collectible” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: completely obliterating cancellation marks creates curve edge of the stamp; large tear creates curve edges; no margins create straight edges; untouched perforations create straight edges).
Regarding instant claim 33, Purdum further discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible to determine whether one or more edges of the collectible have been trimmed, pressed, colored or otherwise altered from its original, as manufactured, characteristics” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: completely obliterating cancellation marks, color changes, creases, scrapes, no margins, holes, tear).
Regarding instant claim 34, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the centering routine the at least one processor is configured to measure a margin between an edge of the collectible and a start of a collectible image on the collectible” (see col. 5 line 63 to col. 6 line 18: measuring margins, top, bottom, left, right and centering).
Regarding instant claim 35, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the centering routine where a collectible image extends to at least one edge of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between at least opposing edges of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible” (see col. 5 line 63 to col. 6 line 18: measuring margins, top, bottom, left, right and centering).
. Regarding instant claim 36, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to measure a distance between any text or logo on the collectible to at least one opposing edge of the collectible to determine a centering of the collectible” (see col. 2 lines 19-36:distance from edges to stamp vignette).
Regarding instant claim 37, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the centering routine where the at least one image of the collectible extends to one or more edges of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to compare other similar collectibles to determine an intended distance between the at least one image of the collectible to at least one opposing edge of another similar collectible to determine a centering of the collectible” (see col. 2 lines 19-36:distance from edges to stamp vignette).
Regarding instant claim 38, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to examine the at least one image of the collectible for subtractive defects, additive discolorations, pressing characteristics, or quality of color of a surface of the collectible” (see col. 1 lines 20-51: color of the stamp is inspected and stamp is graded as super stamp if it has rich color).
Regarding instant claim 39, Purdum further discloses “wherein the subtractive defects comprise a crease or scratch in the collectible that would otherwise not be present, wherein the additive discolorations comprise a stain or color alteration in the collectible that would otherwise not be present” (see col. 1 lines 20-51: stamp is inspected then graded as super stamp if it is undamaged gum, full perforations, without flaws; col. 1 lines 52-60: color changes, scrapes, creases, stain).
Regarding instant claim 40, Purdum further discloses “wherein to perform the surface routine the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the surface of the collectible has been altered” (see col. 1 lines 20-51: stamp is inspected then graded as super stamp if it is full perforations which indicates the surface of stamp has not been altered; ; col. 1 lines 52-60: stamp is graded as good, fair and poor if defects are found and such defects are color changes, scrapes, creases, stains and no margins; this indicates stamp has been altered).
Regarding instant claim 41, Purdum further discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate a grade report of the collectible based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: stamp is graded as super, extreme fine, very fine, fine, very good, good, fair and poor; the characteristics of stamp that is used for such grading are no visible flaws and rich color for super stamp).
Regarding instant claim 42, Purdum further discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a scoring breakdown based on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: stamp is graded as super, extreme fine, very fine, fine, very good, good, fair and poor; the characteristics of stamp that is used for such grading are no visible flaws and rich color for super stamp; thus, the grading as super, extreme fine, very fine, fine, very good, good, fair and poor are referred to the so-called scoring breakdown).
Regarding instant claim 43, Purdum further discloses “wherein the scoring breakdown comprises a scoring for the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the scoring of the one or more characteristics are part of an overall score of the collectible” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: stamp is graded as super, extreme fine, very fine, fine, very good, good, fair and poor; the characteristics of stamp that is used for such grading are no visible flaws and rich color for super stamp).
Regarding instant claim 44, Purdum further discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a digital image of the collectible” (see col. 3 lines 34-55: printout of the digital image of the stamp 21).
Regarding instant claim 46, Purdum further discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a defect listing that indicates a location of one or more defects on the collectible” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: defect lists for stamp grades are described in this citation; for example, obliterating cancellation marks, ink scrapes, creases, color changes, no margin).
Regarding instant claim 47, Purdum further discloses “wherein the defect listing comprises a defect image indicating the location of the one or more defects” (col. 1 lines 20-60: defect lists for stamp grades are described in this citation; for example, obliterating cancellation marks indicate defects at the edges/borders; ink scrapes, creases and color changes indicate defect at the surface of the stamp; and no margin indicate defects at the edges/borders).
Regarding instant claim 49, Purdum further discloses “wherein the grade report comprises a proof card indication indicating that the collectible is free of any defects” (see col. 1 lines 20-60: stamp is graded as super stamp having an indication free of any defects such as without visual flaws, rich color, centering quality, full perforations).
Regarding instant claim 53, Purdum further discloses “wherein to detect the one or more characteristics of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to detect text or symbols on the collectible” (see col. 2 lines 21-36: vignette is detected in order to measure the distance between it and edges).
Claim(s) 54-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crain (U.S. Pat. No. 5,220,614, referred as Crain hereinafter).
Regarding claim 54, Crain discloses an apparatus for examining a collectible, comprising:
a memory (see col. 5 lines 1-13: computer and compact disk; col. 11 lines 15-16: database for storing captured images thus such database does inherently include memory; col. 14 lines 16-17: disk and memory device); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see col. 5 lines 1-13: computer; col. 8 lines 54-63: computer):
obtain at least one image of the collectible (see “capture a digital image of the coin” depicted at 86 in figure 6; image of the coin is illustrated in figures 7-8; col. 11 line 59 to col. 12 line 13);
generate at least one enhanced image of the collectible, based on the at least one image of the collectible, in preparation for grading the collectible (see col. 12 lines 14-32: noise compensation is applied to captured image to generated enhanced image of the coin; col. 13 lines 28-26: image transformations are applied to target image to generate enhanced image of the coin; also see other image enhancement described techniques such as smooth filter, sharpening, edge enhancement, etc... in col. 26 & 28, for example); and
assign a grade to the collectible based on the at least one enhanced image of the collectible, wherein the grade of the collectible is determined from information obtained from the at least one enhanced image (see col. 13 lines 28-57 and col. 30 lines 65-67: grade for the coin; grade for the coin comprises subgrades; subgrades are obtained based on the measurements of the coin qualities; measurements of the coin qualities are the metrics; metrics are the scores based on the images in the windows; the scores of the images in the windows are obtained/graded based on the qualities of the images which are the results of the enhancing process applied to the target coin image), wherein the at least one enhanced image is based on respective physical condition of the collectible (see col. 13 lines 28-57: target coin image is based on the target coin which is a physical target coin; the target coin image is enhanced by performing a series of image transformation; thus, the enhanced image of the target coin is based on the target coin).
Regarding claim 55, Crain further teaches wherein the grade of the collectible is based on an examination of the at least one enhanced image of the collectible (see col. 13 lines 28-38 and 46-57; col. 30 lines 65-67: grade for the coin).
Regarding claim 56, wherein to generate the at least one enhanced image of the collectible, the at least one processor is configured to: apply at least one processing routine to the at least one image of the collectible (see col. 12 lines 14-32: noise compensation is applied to captured image to generated enhanced image of the coin; col. 13 lines 28-26: image transformations are applied to target image to generate enhanced image of the coin; also see other image enhancement described techniques such as smooth filter, sharpening, edge enhancement, etc... in col. 26 & 28, for example).
Regarding claim 57, it is noted that this is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 54. Thus, claim 57 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 54 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23-28, 45 and 50-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdum in in view of Blake (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0126618 A1).
The advanced statements as applied to claims 21-22, 29-44, 46-49 and 53 with regard to Purdum above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 23, Purdum does not discloses claim limitations “assign one or more descriptors related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible, wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible”.
Hover, such claim limitations are well known and widely used in the art as evidence by Blake.
Blake, in the same field of endeavor that of image processing, discloses a database (see paras. [0024] (any appropriate database), [0028] (searchable computer database), [0030] (database), [0046] (electronic database and data database storage mean)) comprising information (descriptors) related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible (para. [0028]: identifier is loaded and used via a searchable computer database, and retrieved and compared with other image identifiers; thus, the search computer database does include identifiers/information (descriptors) related to the coins (collectible) in order to perform searching and outputting a search results; para [0030]: labels that are computer and barcode and contain information related to the coin; the barcode is linked to the database which can be searched to confirm the identity of the coin; labels refer to the so-called descriptors as well), wherein the one or more descriptors comprise at least one of at least one measured attribute of the collectible or at least one metadata related to the one or more characteristics of the collectible (see para [0030]: confirm the date of the coin on which the referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical coin presently being re-graded and whether the coin has been fraudulently altered/doctored in some way; thus date refers to the so-called measured attribute; also, information (labels as barcode) related to the coin is used to determine whether it has been fraudulently altered and such information refers to the so-called measured attribute and/or metadata).
The motivation for doing so is to speed up the grading process and improve the grading accuracy so it would be helpful to collectors to easier making investment decision.
Therefore, before the effective filing of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations as disclosed by Blake in combination with Purdum for that reason.
Regarding instant claim 24, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “wherein the one or more descriptors comprise one or more words or phrases used to categorize or describe the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see Blake, para. [0030]: labels are text, alphanumeric, symbols; date; these are used to identify the coin whether it is the same coin that was graded and being re-graded and whether it has been altered or doctored).
Regarding instant claim 25, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “wherein the at least one processor compares the one or more characteristics of the collectible against a database comprising information related to a plurality of collectibles in order to identify the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see Blake, para. [0030]: labels that are computer and bar coded, and contain any information related to the coin that may be relevant to the coin's value, condition or history. This barcode may be linked to the database which can be searched to confirm the date on which the referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical coin presently being re-graded, and whether the coin has been fraudulently altered/doctored in some way).
Regarding instant claim 26, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “ wherein the at least one processing routine comprises a comparison routine, wherein the at least one processor compares at least one image of one or more previously examined collectibles against the at least one image of the collectible, not known to have been previously examined, obtained by the apparatus, in order to determine whether the at least one image of the collectible matches with the at least one image of the one or more previously examined collectibles” (see Blake, para. [0030]: labels that are computer and bar coded, and contain any information related to the coin that may be relevant to the coin's value, condition or history. This barcode may be linked to the database which can be searched to confirm the date on which the referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical coin presently being re-graded, and whether the coin has been fraudulently altered/doctored in some way).
Regarding instant claim 27, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “wherein the at least one processor detects at least one characteristic of the collectible that is a known counterfeit characteristic of a known counterfeit collectible” (see Blake, para. [0030]: labels that are computer and bar coded, and contain any information related to the coin that may be relevant to the coin's value, condition or history. This barcode may be linked to the database which can be searched to confirm the date on which the referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical coin presently being re-graded, and whether the coin has been fraudulently altered/doctored in some way).
Regarding instant claim 28, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “wherein the at least one processor detects that the collectible is a counterfeit collectible by a comparison between at least one characteristic of the collectible and a known counterfeit collectible comprising at least one known counterfeit characteristic” (see Blake, para. [0030]: labels that are computer and bar coded, and contain any information related to the coin that may be relevant to the coin's value, condition or history. This barcode may be linked to the database which can be searched to confirm the date on which the referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical coin presently being re-graded, and whether the coin has been fraudulently altered/doctored in some way).
Regarding instant claim 45, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses claim limitation “wherein the grade report comprises a counterfeit notification when the collectible is determined to be a counterfeit collectible”.
However, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art. It is noted that Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice in the last office action is taken as an admission of the fact(s) noticed.
The motivation for doing so is to aid the collectors or collectible buyer/investors not to buy or invest in counterfeit collectible.
Therefore, before the effective filing of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations as disclosed by Blake in combination with Purdum for that reason.
Regarding instant claim 50, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “wherein the results of the at least one processing routine produce a fingerprint of the collectible, such that the collectible is authenticated by the apparatus based at least on the one or more characteristics of the collectible” (see Blake, para. [0030]: labels that are computer and bar coded, and contain any information related to the coin that may be relevant to the coin's value, condition or history. This barcode may be linked to the database which can be searched to confirm the date on which the referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical coin presently being re-graded, and whether the coin has been fraudulently altered/doctored in some way; barcode refers to the so-called fingerprint with broadest reasonable interpretation since claim does not define what fingerprint is).
Regarding instant claim 51, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “wherein the at least one processor utilizes the fingerprint of the collectible to determine if the collectible has been previously graded or if a different collectible has been substituted in place of the collectible that has been previously graded” (see Blake, para. [0030]: labels that are computer and bar coded, and contain any information related to the coin that may be relevant to the coin's value, condition or history. This barcode may be linked to the database which can be searched to confirm the date on which the referenced coin was graded and whether it is the same identical coin presently being re-graded, and whether the coin has been fraudulently altered/doctored in some way; barcode refers to the so-called fingerprint with broadest reasonable interpretation since claim does not define what fingerprint is).
Regarding instant claim 52, the combination of Purdum and Blake further discloses “wherein the at least one image of the collectible is obtained free of any external holders or protective elements or is obtained while the collectible is within the external holders or the protective elements” (see coin holder 10 illustrated in figure 1 and described in para. [0042]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DMD
2//2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662